Jump to content

Phoenix_jz

Wiki Editor
  • Content Сount

    7,792
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2144
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

2,878 Superb

About Phoenix_jz

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Birthday 02/02/1999
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Getting chased around the rafters of the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    -All things naval, especially from a technical perspective
    -History in general
    -Rock

Recent Profile Visitors

8,282 profile views
  1. Getting to this a bit late, but it's probably worth highlighting that the era of 'peak' Jeune École (1880s) is the point when the torpedo appeared as a viable weapon, and ships did not yet have particularly effective counters to torpedo boats. This lack of easy ways to counter such ships combined with their high hitting power is what gave them their formidable capability to defend coastal areas from larger warships. With the increasing proliferation of quick-firing guns in the 1890s, not only on battleships but also on cruisers and larger torpedo-boat destroyers, and improved fire control capabilities and ship speeds allowing for greater engagement ranges, the effectiveness of torpedo boats began to drop off, and reduced their ability to act as credible deterrents to the use of larger ocean or sea-going warships. It is always useful to keep this in mind when discussing Jeune École, since the rapidly changing capabilities of the gun and torpedoes from the 1870s to the early 1900s (nevermind hulls, machinery, armor, etc) essentially made a constantly changing paradigm that resulted in many navies see-sawing between different strategies. Another element of the era that should not be separated from the discussion of Jeune École, at least in regards to who adopted it, is the fact it was a highly politized ideology, especially since it came at a time of great liberalization and freedom of press in many European nations. Thus, newspapers and journals were often just as much platforms for the debate of naval strategy as were parliaments, despite the fact such discussions should have really been something taking place between professionals in Navy General Staffs. For example, within France, Jeune École as a concept was taken up by left-wing parties to attack traditionalists and colonialists (which is ironic given the origins of Jeune École), while traditionalist approaches to the navy were thus taken up by the opposite side, and the colonialists likewise were in their own faction with their own idea about how the navy should be oriented. In Italy the question of Jeune École vs a traditional battleship fleet was likewise something of a political football until the advocates of Jeune École were decisively defeated in the early 1880s.
  2. Phoenix_jz

    Impetuoso/ Indomito-class Destoryer designs?

    Nope - I've considered doing the reconstruction actually executed as an April Fools proposal, but otherwise - it's a guided missile cruiser, so it's beyond the scope of the game. The earlier gun-only conversion, meanwhile, I only found about more recently, and unfortunately I also lack much in the way of specific information beyond the fact that it was gun-only based using the 135/45 twins and the 76/62 quads - so a write-up is beyond my resources at the moment.
  3. Phoenix_jz

    Impetuoso/ Indomito-class Destoryer designs?

    I think you're mixing up classes and eras here. All the initial post-war newbuild or rebuilt classes of the 1950s were armed with the American 5"/38, as the best option available, as Italian industry was still recovering from the war. These are the; Indomito-class laid destroyers, both laid down in 1952 and completed in 1958 San Giorgio-class destroyer leader reconstructions of the Capitani Romani started in 1953 and completed 1955-56 Impavido-class guided missile destroyers laid down 1957-59 and completed 1963-64 At this point in time it can best be said that there was more recovery going on in the area of lighter AA guns (with the first versions of the 76mm being developed and entering service in this timeframe), fire control systems, and radar. The saga of the post-war 135mm gun begins in the 1950s, with the wartime 135/45 beginning as the root of efforts to develop a new post-war gun. It was envisioned that this gun system could first be used on the light cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi, which in the 1950s was the subject of plans into an AA cruiser (not only with the 135/45 but also with quadruple 76/62 AA mounts based on the Sovrapposto twin mount design), but by the time the funds were available to act on this the design had shifted into a full-fledged guided missile cruiser. The reconstruction began in 1957 and completed in 1961, and though its main 'bite' were its missiles, it still used the new 135/45 - an automatic design with essentially the same ballistic properties of the wartime gun (33 kg shell fired at 825 m/s), but with a much higher rate of fire - 20 rpm (navweaps refers to this as the 135/45 M1957, though I don't know if that matches the actual designation). As subsequent procurement efforts did not include warships with large guns (the frigates all used the 76mm for their main guns and the helicopter cruisers also only had 76mm guns for self-defense), this did not provide much in the way of opportunity for the new gun. However, in the late 1960s a new class of destroyer - the Audace-class - was being procured, and they were to use the new gun. This gun was installed on Giuseppe Garibaldi in 1968 as a prototype - the 135/53 (completely replacing the 135/45 battery). This gun featured more powerful ballistics and an even greater rate of fire - 33.55 kg shells fired at 870 m/s, with a rate of fire of 25 rpm. The production version was then meant to equip the Audace-class, but then it was decided that it would be more advantageous to turn the gun into a 127mm weapon, allowing for commonality in ammunition with other NATO guns, and thus it was converted into a 127mm/54 - the well-known 127/54 Compatto, which fires the typical range of NATO 5" shells at a rate up to 40 rpm, and first entered service when the Audace-class were completed in 1972/73.
  4. Phoenix_jz

    WW2 Battlecruiser ranking

    Nope, they were designed as battleships. They were actually quite well armored for their tonnage and balanced overall - though Dunkerque's belt armor in particular was relatively thin, her deck armor was quite good, as was her main battery protection and her torpedo defense system. A protective scheme is more than just a belt, after all. Even before the design we know as Dunkerque was finalized, the need to be able to resist 305mm guns of existing battleships they were likely to encounter (those of Italy) had been included in its requirements, and this was about as much as one could expect from a design of its tonnage (26,500 tons standard as designed). They were, all in all, quite balanced designs given their tonnage, and Strasbourg only doubled down on her protection.
  5. Phoenix_jz

    WW2 Battlecruiser ranking

    I'm aware I'm basically shouting at the winds here, but I'd disagree with placing a number of ships on this list. The Dunkerque-class and Scharnhorst-classes are all battleships, not battlecruisers - they're simply smaller than most of the 'full-sized' treaty battleships that ended up getting built. Likewise, the Alaska-class are 'large cruisers', which, though I'd agree were largely the spiritual successors to battlecruisers, are still of significantly different design philosophy to most of the later battlecruisers that survived into WWII (which is basically just Hood, Renown, Repulse, and the four Kongo's), which can make it quite difficult to compare them, especially given the sharp difference in age (Alaska is laid down in 1941, while Hood, the last battlecruiser, was laid down in 1916). They're just too far removed - it'd be like asking to compare König and Bismarck, because both are battleships (and, for the record, they have the same 25-year gap between being laid down that Hood and Alaska have). Hood is pretty indisputably the most powerful design, though her age and lack of major reconstruction does somewhat hurt her, since she's got the second oldest fire control system (a Dreyer Table Mk.V), if only because Repulse is running around with a Mk.IV*. The Kongo-class battlecruisers were all upgraded with the Type 92 in the 1930s, and likewise Renown was fitted with the AFCT Mk.VII, and that combined with the fact she was fitted with a Type 284 fire control radar gives her easily the best fire control of any of the battlecruisers on the list. Thanks to her more extensive modernization, Renown is certainly of greater utility than Repulse or the Kongo's, though, at the same time, Hood is simply much larger and more powerful than any of the other ships on the list, despite having fallen behind in terms of modernization.
  6. Phoenix_jz

    Naval and Defense News 2020

    Correct, technically the first 'true' light cruiser Italy built, given the earlier Giussano and Cadorna-classes were built as 'large scouts' (grande esploratori). Raimondo Montecuccoli was the lead of her two-ship class.
  7. Phoenix_jz

    How feasible are the high tier Italian BBs?

    Heh, yeah, no. They had been planning for three Dunkerque's but the 330mm basically went out the window in favor of the 380mm as soon as they heard the Italians were moving to build 381mm battleships.
  8. Phoenix_jz

    How feasible are the high tier Italian BBs?

    No problem, always happy to weigh in, even if at this point I'm more dreading their efforts to incorporate Italian destroyers than I am looking forward to it... The French, I don't think, were ever likely to go sticking that many of the 380mm on any upcoming battleships. They didn't even go for twelve in reality, when they chose between the three 'Alsace' varaints. Darlan was fairly set on acquiring a larger gun for the MN, requesting studies from the DAN for 400mm, 406mm, and 420mm on 20 July 1930, and likewise the entry for the 431mm naval gun in the French artillery archives comes from 1939, but due to the time it would take to develop a new gun and the need to lay down new battleships as soon as the slips were available, they weren't really an option. For the class we commonly call the 'Alsace'-class (though they actually didn't have a name beyond the informal 'classe Province' - Alsace was merely one of the names available for the two-ship class, along with Normandie, Flandre, and Bourgogne), the French ultimately ordered two the 'Type 1' 40,000-ton versions (3x3 380mm), in their last naval program (1 April 1940), though as far as anyone knows at this point in time they still thought the new German H-class battleships were 40,000 tons standard (which they were considerably more than), though they did correctly peg their armament at 406mm guns. It's possible the under-estimated the armor protection these ships might have and thus felt the 380mm was still adequate. If WWII had not happened when it did, but some years down the line, allowing for European battleship construction to run its course, it is hard to imagine the French would have stuck with the 380mm past the first pair of 40,000-ton battleships, as the true displacement of the H-class would have become apparent eventually, and likewise they would be faced with the Italians likely starting their 406mm battleships to their south. The British were also making their move on 406mm battleships before this, with the Lion-class. If the French had the ability to build a battleship large enough take four quads, they'd have certainly either built something slightly smaller with the 'classic' 4x3 406mm arrangement, or perhaps something different with the 431mm guns. Keeping in mind general size limitations, and the fact the French preferred the A-Y quad arrangement to the A-B arrangement, as much as I dislike République's appearance, it might make the most sense as far as main battery arrangements go if the French did go to a 431mm gun - though you'd still need a ship greater than 45,000 tons standard to do it for sure. That said, République's design is not the most rational (mixing 152mm and 127mm guns...), so you probably wouldn't need quite something of her displacement to get that armament either. I've not seen any mention of any work done for guns past 406mm by Italy. Even the only 'back of napkin' design, which called for a 456mm gun (the Cassone battlecruiser), is barely that as the the battleship/battlecruiser sketched is merely a hypothetical for an article in the October 1921 edition of Rivista Marittima, and the admiral who authored it only 'created' the example as a means of illustrating some points on technical developments or potential future ships. It's definitely worth being skeptical about. Unfortunately the thread most of the discussion about what was found on it has since been 'archived' by WG when the NA team reshuffled their forums, so that's kind of gone as a reference, but long story short we don't know a lot about it and how it was intended to work beyond the basic ballistics. Unfortunately, while I know the ship design was from CRDA, I don't know who was supposed to be working on the gun.
  9. Phoenix_jz

    Bismarck reduced to Useless BB?

    When it comes to how a shell is going to perform, it very much does have to do with the math. And real-life experience certainly backs that up. Things like shell structure, it's overall mass, sectional density, and, of course, it's impact velocity all factor into that. The APC used by the British 16"/45 Mk.I had very poor sectional density, as it was a lightweight shell for its caliber, and as a result was easily the weakest 16" gun in service by the time WWII was fought. Compared to the APC used by the Italian 381/50, which was much heavier for its caliber, and head a heavy AP cap optimized for vertical penetration, it's penetration. Thus, it's capable of penetrating much more in the way of armor, especially since it was fired at a higher velocity and was much better at retaining that velocity in flight. A comparison to Nevada not being sunk by Iowa and the ships with her really doesn't much to dispute that. Expending ammunitions against a ship empty of fuel and ammunition makes it much harder to sink, nevermind the fact that trying to sink a battleship outright with nothing but shells is quite difficult in the first place. This also ignores the fact that the gunfire directed at Nevada would have mission-killed her very early on had she been a 'live' target - much like how Bismarck was pounded for the better part of an hour and a half by the British in her final action, but in reality she had been effectively silenced within half an hour of being engaged. No doubt Nevada was severely damaged by the gunfire directed at her regardless, as it only took a single torpedo hit to get her to go under, but at the end of the day it didn't really matter that Iowa's guns were more than enough to defeat Nevada's armor, if the question was to outright sink her. What mattered was overcoming her buoyancy, and it takes an awful lot of shells to accomplish that against a battleship - especially one of the Standard-types. Hence why torpedoes are so commonly used to finish off targets even after they've been wrecked by gunfire - and that includes ships as large as battleships, and also down to those as small as destroyers.
  10. Phoenix_jz

    Bismarck reduced to Useless BB?

    I mean, you're the one who brought it up. Sorry the math doesn't exactly agree with you. Enjoy the rest of your day.
  11. Phoenix_jz

    Bismarck reduced to Useless BB?

    Thank you for supporting my point with data. Raw data is always helpful. Sort of like how it shows the APC of the 381mm/50 as having a mass 10.6% greater than the APC for the 38cm/48, and an overall sectional density 10% greater. Or how the dimensionally larger British 16" APC is only 5% heavier, and thus the sectional density of 381mm APC is 8.4% greater. This is, after all, part of the reason the 381/50 has greater penetration than the 38cm and 16"/45 Mk.I
  12. Phoenix_jz

    Bismarck reduced to Useless BB?

    The 'POS' shells that; Were heavier than those of the 38cm SK C/34 Had a thicker body and heavy AP cap considerably greater penetration didn't have a chronic dud issue and were fired at a much higher velocity than Rodney's 16" shells If Rodney was running around 381/50's she'd actually have had an easier time defeating Bismarck's armor, though unfortunately with not nearly as much explosive filler per shell. That said, that does produce heavier fragments when the shell explodes, even if not as many...
  13. Phoenix_jz

    quick reference radar topic

    To add to this - C-band is somewhat better at dealing with closer-to-shore environments, and for this reason tends to be favored by the MMI over S-band given conditions in the Mediterranean. Ex, EMPAR, MFRA, are both C-band radars, and Kronos Dual Band will be X & C-band.
  14. Phoenix_jz

    How feasible are the high tier Italian BBs?

    Well, your suspicion is absolutely on point. The high-tier Italian designs in-game are, to be blunt, absurd, and that's because they're mostly entirely WG creations intended to work with the flavor designed for the lines. They diverge sharply from Italian designs and intentions. Some historical background; Italian fire control at the time considered batteries with more than 10 guns inefficient, and from a design perspective this was somewhat seen as a waste - once you can manage more than 10 guns on a design, you must seriously ask yourself why you're using a caliber low enough that you can fit, say, 12 of them on a ship. Thus, Italian designs as a rule of thumb tended to favor 6-10 guns, aka, the effective minimum, and the logical maximum. A good example of this is the design process of the Littorio-class itself. The origins of the class lie within the 1928 studies into new battleship designs (although they likely built on past studies, these are the 'real' serious start dates of the designs) that would fit in the WNT restrictions, and moreover, the limits of the 70,000 long tons Italy had of early construction alongside France. Two variants came out. The first was a 35,000-ton battleships, which was to be armed with 3x2 406mm guns, have a top speed of 29-30 knots, and a 350mm belt. With treaty restrictions, it would have been possible to build two ships like this. The other alternative was a 23,000-ton ship armed with 3x2 381mm guns, a top speed of 28-29 knots, and armored with a 330mm belt. It would have been possible to build three of these ships with the early tonnage available to Italy. Given the economic and political situation, these projects were kept on the back-burner, but the larger project (35,000 tons) was favored by the Naval Staff due to its superior qualities, and the general skepticism given towards smaller designs (much as everyone took the 10,000-ton cruiser limit as an objective, the RM likewise realized that the 35,000-ton limit would be seen in a similar light). The design was not picked up again until 1932, when preliminary studies for what became the Littorio-class began, and they picked of starting with the 35,000-ton design. At the time, the 381mm gun became favored, as it would be less of a leap to produce industrially (Italian industry had already built 381mm guns), and nine of them could be mounted on the 35,000-ton design versus six 406mm guns. The greater penetrative power of the 406mm (+ 2,000 meters to penetrate a given thickness of armor relative to the 381mm) and greater damaging effect was seen as less satisfactory at the time if it was a question of 6 guns versus 9, and these factors resulted in the 381mm being chosen. That being said, as the preliminary design was worked on it became clear that they were not quite so limited in terms of armament, and at the Admirals Committee meetings from 21-23 March 1934 there was discussions as to whether it was worth increasing the armament to ten guns utilizing quadruple turrets, with two variants proposed - one mirrored what would ultimately be adopted by the British with their King George V-class, while the other version involved installing a quadruple turret aft rather than the intended triple turret. Also proposed was to arm the ship with eight 406mm guns, a triple fore and aft with a twin superfiring forward. Ultimately, however, it was decided to retain the 3x3 381/50 of the preliminary design, as this was the most balanced configuration and would allow design and production to be focused on a single turret type, rather than the potential combination of twins and and quads, triples and quads, or twins and triples. Thus the design of what became the Littorio-class forged ahead with the 3x3 381/50 arrangement. Insofar as future battleships design went - work on what came next started in 1935, initially as part of the 135/36 'breakout fleet' program. This called for a larger design (41,000 tons standard displacement), and was armed with 3x3 406mm guns. This rapidly increased to 42,000 tons standard. Although the 'Breakout Fleet' program failed to manifest, the design was far from thrown out, and in fact was continuously tinkered with. In the meantime, however, Ansaldo developed an export design for the USSR based on, but still quite different to (most obviously in terms of secondary armament, but also in protective scheme), the initial design of this battleship, which became UP.41. The battleship design continued to grow, ultimately to a 45,000-ton battleship capable of 32 knots with a five-layer TDS, heavier armor than the prior Littorio-class, and an armament of 3x3 406/50, 4x3 152/55, and 12x2 90mm. The design was proposed for construction in the 1938 naval program, but ultimately Cavagnari, CSMM at the time, decided to go for a pair of repeat Littorio's (which became Impero and Roma), due to the faster construction time possible for a proven design. A second opportunity appeared in the large 1939 naval program, which initially called for two 45,000-ton battleships (along with a host of other vessels for construction in the 1939-1945 time frame), though this rapidly fell apart with the slide towards war, with the initial program put together in January replaced by a smaller one who's largest vessels were to be three light cruisers of the Costanzo Ciano-class - and even these ships failed to manifest once Europe went to war. The design was still worked on as late as the summer of 1941, though it was definitively dropped by that point. Had the original 1939 naval program gone ahead undisturbed, it is likely that the ships would have been laid down in 1940. Relative to the ships in-game: Now, versus what we have in the game - the key takeaway here, aside from the fact that, yeah, no 3x4 or 4x4 battleship designs existed, is that the RM was very much not on board with the idea of 'cram loads of guns on a big hull'. In Littorio's preliminaries (where the ship was still 35,000 tons standard), debated changes to the armament were either 10x 381/50, or an upgunning to 8x 406mm, which was considered a viable armament on a hull of such displacement. Once the RM had the opportunity to design a larger, 41,000-ton battleship from scratch, they immediately moved to a 406mm armament, and did not consider mounting a larger number of 381mm guns than they had on the Littorio-class. Ironically, this wasn't much more than what the Littorio-class ultimately displaced at standard load when completed (40-40,500 tons), but, hey, the 41,000-ton battleship design almost immediately went to 42,000 tons standard and ended up at 45,000 tons by the end of the 1930s. In any case - it should be abundantly clear that the RM would not have the slightest inclination towards installing multiple quadruple turrets on battleships as large as the in-game 'Lepanto'. A battleship of that size would have certainly been armed with 3x3 406mm guns at the very least. The simple reality is that there is not much of a rationale, as far as the RM is concerned, to mount an excessive number of low-caliber guns on a battleship when it can already take a more than sufficient number of 406mm guns. This reality does create difficulty when we look at battleships that would quality as tier X in WoWs, since as far as we know there were no modern studies by the RM in regards to battleships of such displacement, and neither was their any work on guns larger than 406mm. The only adequately sized design we know of from the era is 4-16/16-40, but that is notably not a navy design, but rather one done by CRDA, and there is simply not enough know about the background of the design beyond that. As it was, the Regia Marina did not want to build battleships larger than 45,000 tons standard, as this was simply pushing for ships that were beyond Italy's means to build on a practical basis (i.e. in sufficient numbers to form a division and without screwing over all other naval construction plans). France was in a similar position - such ships were simply beyond the means of either country on a practical basis. Realistically, if Italy was to build a tier X worthy battleship, you'd probably end up with something with guns larger than 406mm - maybe a 3x3 431mm? It's hard to tell. It would have had to have been fast enough to keep up with cruiser forces, adequately protected against guns as powerful as its own, and still retain sufficient offensive power. It's simply not a caliber of warship the Regia Marina was thinking about in the 1930s and 1940s. In regards to cruisers - this is quite difficult as we simply don't have a lot of information available on in-house cruiser designs by the RM in the 1930s, at least as far as heavy cruisers go. As far as in-house stuff goes; We do know that the RM was considering new 'large' cruisers in the mid-1930s, armed with 203mm/55 guns (it was intended to convert old 10" barrels), though this was not acted on in favor of consideration towards new 152/55 guns with greater automation. It is important to note that in 1930 Italy had reached an informal understanding with France that neither would build any more heavy cruisers for the sake of arms and cost control, and realistically once battleship construction began in earnest in both countries neither had the resources to expend on cruiser construction - after their FY1932 naval programs neither navy will order a new cruiser until the French place the order for De Grasse in 1937, and she wasn't laid down until 1939 anyways. Italian naval construction in the latter half of the 1930s became largely a victim of Italian foreign policy, as thanks to Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia and the resulting sanctions, and then the participation in the Spanish Civil War, importing certain materials necessary for the production of high-strength steel became difficult, and likewise funds that might have otherwise gone towards procurement went towards operational costs associated with sustaining these war efforts. The twelve Capitani Romani-class scout cruisers, as an example, had their origins in the 1935/36 'Breakout Fleet' program, and were supposed to be ordered in the FY1937/38 program (and ended up being ordered in 1938) with the intent to lay them down in 1938, but their construction was delayed to the first ship was not laid down until April 1939, with the rest following in September and October of 1939. The next set of cruisers formally considered by the RM were a class of six 8,000-ton light cruisers, which were intended to be part of the aforementioned initial 1939 naval program. These were meant to act as long-range raiders, capable of 32 knots but with a massive cruising range of 15,000 nm at 15 knots, armor similar to the Abruzzi-class, and an armament of 2x4 152/55 (A-Y layout) and 8x1 90/50. This reflected the RM's intent to operate an offensive force in the Indian Ocean (and these cruisers as a result were supposed to have a massive ammo capacity as a result - 50% more than existing light cruisers, which typically had 210-225 rpg). In any case, with the initial collapse of the long-term 1939 program and a shift to a more normal yearly program, the 8,000-ton cruiser was dropped in favor of an adaptation of the existing Abruzzi-class, which became the 9,800-ton Costanzo Ciano-class. They likewise had a huge cruising radius, with slightly improved armor relative to Abruzzi (ex, main armor deck was increased to 45mm thick, turret faceplates also became 5mm thicker), and an armament of 3x3 152/55 (A-X-Y). Two of these cruisers were ordered in the FY1939/40 program (with a third planned to follow), though, as mentioned in the battleship section), the program was scrapped before either could be laid down (first was supposed to be laid down in late 1939). That said, the RM's own design office was far from the only active in Italy; Expanding to work by Italian companies, it is worth noting that many were working on export designs at the time. Ansaldo most famously, but likewise OTO and CRDA were also marketing designs to various foreign yards. It is interesting to note that one of these - Ansaldo's UP.90 - was adapted for the RM. UP.90 was an 8,000-ton 'Pocket Battleship' design, marketed to smaller naval powers such as Romania, and had a 100mm belt, 2x3 254/55, 6x2 100/47, and was to go 30 knots. An alternative variant was jointly marketed with the Americans to Chile that replaced the secondary battery with 5"/51's. The design, from 1936, was adapted in 1937 into a light cruiser (known as UP.90bis or UP.90 mod. depending on who you ask), which had broadly similar hull characteristics, though a much modified armament. Basic characteristics were an 8,000-ton displacement, an overall length of 176 meters, a top speed of 30 knots (60,000 shp), a 100mm belt, 65mm armor deck, main battery of 3x3 152/55, secondary battery of 6x2 100/47, 2x3 533mm TT, and a catapult for 2-3 aircraft. Nothing came of it that I know of, though some claim it served as the basis for the later 8,000-ton cruiser or for the Ciano-class. This is an interesting point to consider because there are a load of larger export designs being offered at the time by various Italian companies, and quite a fair number were adapted by earlier work by the RM in the early 1930s - ex, Ansaldo's UP.102 is likely taken from the Pocket Battleship study by the RM from ~1928/32, both being 10,500-ton cruisers capable of 31 knots with an armament of 2x3 280/50 - so it does raise the question of how many of these export designs were actually adopted from designs that originated within the RM. Many larger cruiser designs than the 8-10k ton light cruisers previously mentioned exist, though many are distinctly edging into pocket-battleship or large cruiser territory. Good examples of this are the 16,000-tonne (trial displacement) cruisers for Spain of 1940, which feature a 4x2 203/53, 4x3 152/55, and 3x3 203/55 variant (the latter being the basis for the game's 'Amalfi'). There is also a pair of larger 19,000-ton and 22,000-ton cruisers for the USSR from 1936, which are just as fast (37 knots), but more heavily armed and armored (3x3 254/55). To speculate as to what might one might expect from Italy in regards to large cruisers - the French naval program of April 1940 called for three heavy cruisers, which were supposed to replace the Duguay Trouin-class as they neared 20 years in service, and were planned regardless of the war. Without the war (as so often has to be assumed for WG's high-tier ships), then something like 'Amalfi' is quite likely to be ordered as a response, though to be honest I seriously doubt the Italians would invest in anything much larger unless the French try - which is also unlikely. Go any larger and you're competing for capital ships in terms of slip space material investments. Something to the scale of the tier X, 'Venezia', with 5x3 203mm guns is beyond moronic, and it still somewhat surprises me that WG added a design so vapid of any rationality or logic to the game, regardless of how low my expectations have sunk. That's what you get for boxing yourself in with an attempt at a unique line flavor and sticking SAP on the wrong type of ship, I suppose? In any case, for reference, 'Venezia' is right around the size, displacement, and machinery power of the 22,000-ton cruiser sold to the USSR in 1936 (wow, I wonder what might have inspired those characteristics...), just armed with the hilariously stupid armament of fifteen 203mm guns. Without a doubt, if the RM was willing to invest the tonnage into such a cruiser, it would have been armed with the 254mm/55's they'd been kicking around as a concept since the early 1930s. The tier IX cruiser, 'Brindisi', isn't really that egregious, if still unlikely. I could see a 10-gun cruiser, but someone's going to be raising questions when a 12-gun 203mm cruiser gets built - namely 'why do we need this many 203mm guns, and wouldn't it be smarter to fit larger guns more suited to tackling cruisers of about this displacement'. That said, it still easily could have been the tier X, if not for the flavor WG forced on the cruisers that de facto makes them weaker than they'd be if balanced normally.
  15. Phoenix_jz

    A Writer's Opinion on the Firepower of European Naval Ships

    Thanks, I appreciate the corrections! I'm definitely still learning when it comes to PLAN systems. In regards to the C-band radar on top of the mast, and the X-band radar on top of the deck house - what are their roles? Surface search? Main gun fire control?
×